Burrell et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 69

AMENDED ORDER granting Stipulation to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial Date. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/06/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 LORI E. PEGG, Acting County Counsel (S.B. #129073) KARL A. SANDOVAL, Lead Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #170190) MELISSA R. KINIYALOCTS, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #215814) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 5 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL, and MARTY FENSTERSHEIB 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Jose) 9 10 11 ALMA BURRELL et al., No. CV11-04569 LHK 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE [AMENDED] COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate to continue the April 10, 2013 Pretrial Conference and the April 29, 2013 Trial date on the following grounds: 1. In the parties’ initial Joint Case Management Statement they proposed a fact discovery 20 cut-off on May 31, 2013, and the final date to hear dispositive motions on June 27, 2013. The 21 parties also proposed scheduling the Pretrial Conference on September 18, 2013, and Trial on 22 October 21, 2013. 23 2. During the initial Case Management Conference on May 9, 2012, the Court ordered fact 24 discovery cut-off on November 23, 2012, and that dispositive motions were to be filed by January 25 24, 2013, and set for hearing no later than February 28, 2013. The Court also set the Pretrial 26 Conference on April 10, 2013, and Trial on April 29, 2013. 27 28 3. Thereafter, the parties conducted discovery, which included (among other things) taking depositions of all three Plaintiffs in multiple parts between June and November 2012, subpoenaing 1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial Date CV11-04569 LHK 1 Plaintiffs’ medical records, and deposing Plaintiffs’ providers. Plaintiffs took the depositions of 2 Defendants and one other witness, Dolores Alvarado. The parties also completed written discovery, 3 which required Plaintiffs to respond to extensive interrogatories and demands for production of 4 documents and Defendants to gather thousands of pages of documents from multiple County 5 departments to produce in response to Plaintiffs’ demands for production of documents. 4. 6 Defendants complied with the Court’s Case Management Order and filed their motion 7 for summary judgment as to all 10 causes of action on January 24, 2013, and set it for hearing on 8 February 28, 2013. Defendants also filed a motion to sever1 Plaintiff Margaret Headd on January 9 24, 2013, and set it for hearing on February 28, 2013. 5. 10 On February 25, 2013, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on Defendants’ 11 motion for summary judgment and motion to sever to April 4, 2013. The order did not mention the 12 Pretrial Conference or Trial date. 6. 13 Under the Court’s standing order for trials, the parties must meet and confer about 14 settlement, preparation for the Joint Pretrial Statement, preparation and exchange of pretrial 15 materials, and clarifying and narrowing the contested issues for trial by March 21, 2013. The parties 16 are required to lodge and serve their Joint Pretrial Statement and Order, trial exhibits, and motions in 17 limine by March 27, 2013. Both the March 21, 2013 and March 27, 2013 deadlines occur well 18 before the April 4, 2013 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to sever 19 Plaintiff Headd. 20 7. The parties agree that the Court’s order on the pending motion for summary judgment 21 may significantly impact the scope of facts and issues that remain for trial. Moreover, the Court’s 22 order on the pending motion to sever may result in two trials. The parties are presently in the 23 position, however, of preparing for the March 21 and 27, 2013 deadlines, and for trial, without 24 knowing which claims and issues, if any, will remain for trial and whether there will be one or two 25 26 27 28 1 Notably, during the initial Case Management Conference the Court inquired about whether Plaintiffs were properly joined in this action. Defendants decided to file a motion to sever Plaintiff Headd after completing discovery, and learned that the first available date to have the motion heard was February 28, 2013, the same date as the hearing on their motion for summary judgment. 2 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial Date CV11-04569 LHK 1 trials. 8. 2 The parties further agree that the interests of conserving litigation resources and judicial 3 economy weigh in favor of continuing the Pretrial Conference and Trial date. As such, the parties 4 agree and respectfully request that the Court continue the Pretrial Conference to May 8, 2013, and 5 the Trial date to May 28, 2013. I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 6 7 “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document. LORI E. PEGG ACTING COUNTY COUNSEL 8 9 10 Dated: February 26, 2013 By: 11 12 /S/ . MELISSA R. KINIYALOCTS Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL, and MARTY FENSTERSHEIB 13 14 15 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER 16 17 Dated: February 28, 2013 18 By: /S/ CHARLES A. BONNER . Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALMA BURRELL, VICKYE HAYTER, and MARGARET HEADD 19 20 21 22 [PROPOSED] ORDER [AMENDED] 23 The Pretrial Conference is continued to May 8, 2013, and the Trial date is continued to May 24 28, 2013. May 2, 2013, and the Trial date is continued to May 6, 2013. 25 Dated:____________________ March 6, 2013 _____________________________ 26 HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH United States District Court Judge 27 28 713351.DOC Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial Date 3 CV11-04569 LHK

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?